MM wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 12:23:37 GMT, Palindrome wrote:
>
>> Cynic wrote:
>>
>>> I'm asking whether it is either necessary of beneficial to make such
>>> images illegal in some circumstances but not others. What harm or
>>> potential harm has the defendent caused that he is being punished for?
>>>
>> Most things are illegal in some circumstance, but not another.
>> Possessing a knife, being just one example.
>
> Explain, if you will, how a cup of tea might be illegal in and of
> itself, not what is done with it? Following your detailed exposition,
> have a look at a Hot Cross Bun.
IIUC, it is illegal for visitors to smuggle in food and drink into UK
prisons. Thus visitors caught with such things in the visiting rooms
could be in hot water.
>
>> There are now many "thought crimes" - where an arguably harmless
>> activity is punished on the basis of what it *may* lead to. Sleeping it
>> off in the back of a parked car (under certain circumstances), for example.
>
> That's illegal? Surely it's not the sleeping, but the getting there
> under the influence that is illegal? You surely cannot propose that a
> driver in a snowdrift on a motorway must not go to sleep while waiting
> to be rescued?
"Sleeping it off" is usually associated with more than tiredness.. It is
entirely possible for someone to have got there quite legally. It is
"being under the influence" *there* that is the problem (certain
exclusions applying).
>
>> However, IIUC, no one has been found guilty of a kp offence based solely
>> on unaltered pictures that appear in books on Foyle's shelves.
>
> I recall a police officer saying not so long ago that anyone in
> possession of Brooke Shields' early film works would be bang to
> rights.
I recall a certain police officer trying to book me for having a vehicle
on the road with no tax disc. Much to his annoyance, someone that knew
the law at the station explained that my vehicle didn't need one.
>
>> The after effects of a drink-driving conviction can be pretty damaging
>> for someone who quite possibly hadn't realised that he was over the
>> limit. But if he can't adequately monitor what hard stuff he is downing,
>> then he should perhaps stick to soft drinks.
>>
>> Similarly, if a person with a taste for . can't adequately monitor
>> what he is downloading, then maybe he should stick to something softer.
>
> You mean, the Littlewoods catalogue, maybe? That okay, is it? Think of
> the hundreds of children being harmed!
If he can't tell the difference between adults and children than yes,
maybe he had better stick with the Littlewoods (or Ann Summers)
Catalogue - or anything else available without resorting to dubious
websites.
--
Sue |